Are democratic socialists made"restricted members"

[CrazyModerate]

I am a socialist democrat, and I'm just wondering, does that make me a "restriced member." I hate racism, imperial, and capitalism, but I also hate violence, authoritarianism, and anti-progressive thought. Does this make me sub-human in your communist mind?

[More Fire for the People]

No.
Your pretty much in step with communist, because communist do not advocate racism, imperialism, capitalism, and classical authoritarianism.
They do advocate progress and revolution, which is not random violence.

[C_Rasmussen]

Now I have seen various members with the "restricted members" title. What does that mean?

[Redmau5]

It usually means they're reactionary supporters of capitalism.

[workersunity]

before long youll be a vibrant communist

[Black Dagger]

I am a socialist democrat, and I'm just wondering, does that make me a "restriced member."

If you don't advocate capitalism, then no. But this is a revolutionary leftist forum.



I hate... capitalism...

Does 'hating' capitalism extend to abolishing it? As a 'democratic socialist' (what does that make everyone else by the way? 'authoritarian socialists'?), do you want abolish capitalism, wages, 'the market', classes, and so forth? Or do you want to maintain class division, but lessen the 'sting' of the markets tail?



Does this make me sub-human in your communist mind?

Are you trying to provoke something?

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 5 2005, 07:17 PM

I am a socialist democrat, and I'm just wondering, does that make me a "restriced member."

If you don't advocate capitalism, then no. But this is a revolutionary leftist forum.



I hate... capitalism...

Does 'hating' capitalism extend to abolishing it? As a 'democratic socialist' (what does that make everyone else by the way? 'authoritarian socialists'?), do you want abolish capitalism, wages, 'the market', classes, and so forth? Or do you want to maintain class division, but lessen the 'sting' of the markets tail?



Does this make me sub-human in your communist mind?

Are you trying to provoke something?
Yes I believe in the eventual abolition of capitalism, class system, monetary system etc, but I do not believe in the sudden violent abolition that has taken place before. I am of the belief that if you try to force things, they end up broken.

For now, I believe that if we are unable to defeat capitalism outright(which we aren't, because if we were it would have happened by now), we must settle for "lessening the sting" using democracy, boycotting, and peaceful protest. For now.

But I also realise that the removal of laws that lessen the sting may quicken a revolution because monopolies would occur and there would be no social security for the poor, etc. But this would also leave the poor very vulnerable for the time period that capitalism remained, more vulnerable than now.

Yes I was trying to provoke someone.

It makes everyone else a revolutionary socialist. It makes everyone else the kind of socialist that wants to violently put down any other ideology. It also refers to the fact that socialist/social democrats take small steps and are very patient, too patient for most rev lefters, at dismantling capitalism.

[redstar2000]

No, we do not restrict social democrats to Opposing Ideologies on this board as a matter of policy.

But we don't respect them much and are prone to give them a pretty hard time in discussions.

At the present time, European social democrats are competing with conservatives and reactionaries in trying to force 19th century conditions on the European working class. That's what the word "reform" means these days!

In the U.S., the "democratic socialists" are the left-wing of the Democratic Party...which means they spend all their time looking for capitalist ass to kiss.

As someone put it so well here a couple of years ago...

Democratic Socialism = Capitalism Lite!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Entrails Konfetti]

If we have a Revolution,can I kick a Capitalist in the neck? Please? Can I? Can I? Oh please Oh Please!!!


Opps I meant ,WHEN we have a Revolution.

[Black Dagger]

Yes I believe in the eventual abolition of capitalism, class system, monetary system etc, but I do not believe in the sudden violent abolition that has taken place before.

I don't 'believe' in the 'suddent violent abolition' that has taken place 'before', i'm interested in the future! New revolutions, new strategies, new ideas. I don't suppose learning is possible? Revolutions of the past have failed, so revolution should be abandoned? Reformism does not have a 'better' record in making meaningful movement towards a communist society, in fact- it's far worse.

Its far easier for a reformist group to lose its tenuous grip on bourgeois power structures (structures established and run by the ruling class) and succumb to capitalism- than it is for a revolution to succumb to a capitalist counter-revolution, why? Because reformism doesnt abolish capitalism, to begin with, the state is still there, all the institutions are there, the weapons of ruling class power, they're all still there. In this context, 'restoring' capitalism is only a matter of kicking the 'social democrat' out of office and putting a new puppet in their place, it's window dressing after all. And moreover the potential for meaningful gains through reformism is severely restricted, why would the ruling class let a political party legislate against their interests?
Bourgeois politics is a ruling class game, they pull all the strings and they have all the power within that system. Trying to work from within that is either going to lead to the corruption of you party/movement, its class basis (if it has any to begin with) and its goals, or its going to lead to the extermination/banning of your party/movement if it gets too big for its boots.

You say that you believe in the 'eventual' abolition of capitalism, class and so forth, who is to oversee this slow abolition? The state? A party? A leader? Why is it in their interest to do legislate away their priviledge?



I am of the belief that if you try to force things, they end up broken.

Yes! But not broken - completely destroyed. Capitalism and the bourgeois state must be smashed.



It makes everyone else the kind of socialist that wants to violently put down any other ideology.

The only 'ideology' that revolutionaries want to put down is capitalist/pro-capitalist or otherwise anti-communist ideologies, and if you're a 'socialist' you must want to do that too, right? You are anti-capitalist after all, correct?



It also refers to the fact that socialist/social democrats take small steps and are very patient, too patient for most rev lefters, at dismantling capitalism.

Patience, hmmm. Sometimes it can hard not to just confuse 'patience' with submission, after all, the ruling class much prefers the 'patience' of a 'social democrat' than the fire of a revolutionary, the former they can control, the latter they cannot.

[kurt]

Yes I believe in the eventual abolition of capitalism, class system, monetary system etc, but I do not believe in the sudden violent abolition that has taken place before. I am of the belief that if you try to force things, they end up broken.

History has shown us that the ruling class will use any methods they can to grip their power in times of struggle. These are times when they turn to fascism and the like, the best we could hope for is to force the system to change, and smash it. Thus, breaking the system is actually our goal, and not something we wish to avoid.


For now, I believe that if we are unable to defeat capitalism outright (which we aren't, because if we were it would have happened by now), we must settle for "lessening the sting" using democracy, boycotting, and peaceful protest. For now.
This is good, and I'm sure almost every here will agree with you. Many members of this forum are active in their community, pushing for changes within the system. Just because the revolution isn't happening today, doesn't mean we don't try to force some semblance of a social conscience into society.


But I also realize that the removal of laws that lessen the sting may quicken a revolution because monopolies would occur and there would be no social security for the poor, etc. But this would also leave the poor very vulnerable for the time period that capitalism remained, more vulnerable than now.
Agree with you on this one.


Yes I was trying to provoke someone.
No need to provoke on here, we're friends here.


It makes everyone else a revolutionary socialist. It makes everyone else the kind of socialist that wants to violently put down any other ideology. It also refers to the fact that socialist/social democrats take small steps and are very patient, too patient for most rev lefters, at dismantling capitalism.
Yes, I do advocate putting down other ideologies to the best of my ability. However, useless violence is not necessary, and I don't appreciate your opinion on us revlefters. We're not mindless barbarians, wishing violence upon the world. In actuality, you'll probably find us to be extremely peaceful. On the other hand, most of us are under no delusions of the ruling class's fortitude when it comes to maintaining their power.

Also, you're damn right; we're not patient in the least bit. Each extra breath that capitalism is allowed to take represents a gasp for air from each worker across the world. We may not be very patient when it comes to capitalism, however, we're not stupid. We know that the material situation must be present for revolution. This does not mean we won't be out in our communities, agitating, and pushing for change.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think you will find that your ideas will change a lot with frequesnt discussion. I was a social democrat for a while, but gave up for my own reasons, namely because I saw other non-violent possible methods. But I do agree with the forcing, and breaking idea you have. Many here are revolutionary (in the traditional sense) although not (including myself) all. "Revolutionary left" is a fairly new name.

You said you tried provoking people, there is a site you can be put in touch with if it is "Stalinist kiddies" you wish to "debate" with, but the remaining authoritarians here are generally reasonable.

Anyway discussion in depth discussion is for another time and forum, welcome aboard :)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 04:06 PM
It also refers to the fact that socialist/social democrats take small steps and are very patient, too patient for most rev lefters, at dismantling capitalism.
Most social democrats don't even claim to be dismantling capitalism, nowadays. The Swedish Socialist Party, Tony Blair, etc...they don't claim to represent some different road to socialism, just a reformed capitalism.

If you really think it's possible to get to a fundamentally different kind of economic order by gradual steps, you're pretty unusual in this century.